RBBC is a myth? (1 Viewer)

[renesauz]

Copied from another thread about the Jets RB situation.

Great thread concerning RBBC. Does anyone think that WRs may be gaining more value in FF?

Only the stud WR's, but I think it has more to do with the current WCO trend, and more teams trying to spread the ball around then force it to just one or two recievers. IE: Stud recievers seem to be seperating themselves a bit more then before. I haven't done/seen a study on this though, so I could be wrong.

RBs getting 300 carries are going the way of the dodo. Getting a stable of 220 touch runners is becoming more and more the norm in FF>

Besides the fact this is 100% incorrect, good post. RBs with 300 carries2000 - 92001 - 102002 - 92003 - 132004 - 92005 - 102006 - 10 (Droughns w/ 297, so you could bump this to 11)

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh! As long as people keep believing in the "RBBC trend", we can take advantage of the falsehood!I'd like to see a deeper study on this topic. I don't think it's so much that the carries are going down for RB1's (statistics seem to show that they aren't!) as it is that more teams are focused on ensuring they have a quality RB2. There seem to be more quality RB2's in the league the last few years. I think that if we look closer, we might find that WR carries are decreasing, and RB3/4 carries are also on a downturn, RB1 carries are steady, and RB2 carries are UP. The net effect is to slightly depreciate the value of RB's in FF because there are more viable options on the better running teams with the RB2's. I have been truthfully confused by all the RBBC talk. It seems most believe in it, but if you looked at nothing but RB1 statistics year to year, and total team rushing yards year to year, the numbers simply don'timply RBBC. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think any of our studies to date have gone deep enough. We need to look at the third, fourth, and lower running options closer....I very strongly suspect they will explain why we THINK we're seeing a RBBC trend, when the truth is the opposite.

 

[fsufan]

after the top 5 RBs(LT, SA, LJ, SJ, Westy(so undervalued) , the rest are good/average RBs and need to be in the right situation/system to produce. I think Edge is a prefect example last year, good RB in a bad situation. I think Henry will be another example in 07, good RB going to a good situation.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Previous thread on this with good info: The future of the RB position: will feature backs become extinct?

A related question: is RBBC more common, or does it just FEEL that way because a team's RB1 is more likely to change from year-to-year? In other words, maybe RB1 is just as likely now to receive the lion's share of carries (vs. in the past). But due to a variety of factors (injuries, salary cap era, availability of quality young talent, etc), it's harder to predict who will RB1 on each team the following season.

In other words, once the starter is "locked" at the end of training camp, owners can feel comfortable that they have a quality RB1. But as soon as the season ends, the uncertainty and discomfort begins.

Not sure how easy it would be to analyze this - and I'm probably too lazy to do it myself - but it would be interesting (at least to me!).

 

[jurb26]

I'd have to agree with you, renesauz. All this RBBC talk seems more like myth than fact to me as well. I have not taken any time to actually break down numbers so maybe I'm wrong.

 

[renesauz]

Every bit of hard evidence I've seen seems to point to RB1 numbers staying consistant....yet people I generally trust (Bloom, et. al.) keep using the term RBBC.

WE, as a group, have missed something somewhere.

 

[Phlash]

Maybe we're using the term RBBC incorrectly.

Running backs do the following:

Run the ball

Catch the ball

Block for the QB

Running backs can have different attributes:

Super hands/blocking for 3rd downs

Great cutting ability (for big gains)

Great power (for tough yards)

Great/poor vision

Stamina

Ideally, a team prefers to have a RB with all of these traits. Since that's not a realistic desire, most teams will settle for someone who is good/great at MOST of them, and make them the starter. 50/50 split RBBC only seems to occur when a team has two backs of equal skill OR two backs with different skills but equal skills in their departments. On that note, every team could be considered a RBBC, because while teams like the Patriots utilized Maroney/Dillon/Faulk last year in a RBBC, in '04 when Dillon busted off 1600 yards and 12 TDs, no one was doubting that he was the bonafide starter, even though Faulk was in on a lot of the 3rd down plays. Dillon happened to be better at Faulk in enough areas to get a vast majority of the carries, but I still consider this to be a RBBC. No team is going to hand it off to one back 20-25 times a game, every game (unless your the Chiefs with Johnson or the former Colts with edge). RBBC is just something thats part of football, in the same way that no team is going to throw to one WR every play - they will utilize their whole team.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

I'm about to start some research on the RBBC myth. I'll post the results when I finish. Good topic.

 

[CalBear]

The reason we think we're seeing more RBBC is twofold:

1) Humans are terrible at accurately assessing trends. We automatically remember the data points which fit with what we already believe, and discard the data points which disagree with it.

2) Fantasy football keeps getting bigger and bigger. Fantasy football players spend enormous amounts of time obsessing about RBs, therefore, we have a lot more information and discussion about marginal backup RBs who might be the next coming of Priest Holmes. In 1990, no one would have cared about Trung Canidate or Reshard Lee; a player who made two or three big plays was just a bench warmer until he proved something substantive. Now, any time some scrub outruns a linebacker (or even better, stiff-arms one), there will be a 100-post thread on the front page for a week.

 

[Hooper31]

I know Doug Drinen did an analysis of RBBC a few years ago. He may still have the data available, or can quickly generate it again. It showed what percentage of carries was going to the top ball carrier for each team and compared it to past data. Regardless of what people may think we are nowhere near the RBBC that existed back in the 70s.

 

[Z-Dog]

There's not much point in comparing offensive production today with the 1970s.

I guess it depends where you set your lines, but year-to-year, there seem to be about 10-12 backs in the 280+ carry club. There are also a bunch of backs who are solo backs but who get hurt and have fewer carries. Shaun Alexander comes to mind last year. There are also quite a few teams who think they won't have a committee, but wind up with one b/c of injury, ineffectiveness, or some other factor. Reuben Droughns, Caddy, McGahee, and Clinton Portis all were in that position last year.

In other words, teams desperately want the stud RB, and those that have one tend to run him hard. Relatively few teams successfully limit a star RB's touches, no matter what the coaching staff says. However, many teams do not have this overwhelming talent, or have to put up with the realities of injuries.

On the fantasy level RBBC gets thrown around so much that I think it has no meaning anymore. Portis is not going to be in an RBBC. He may not get 350 touches, but he's not going under 280 either - he will still be in the top-12 in the NFL in carries (imo). However, many threads will discuss the Portis/Betts 'RBBC'. Meaniningless.

 

[David Yudkin]

I've posted in these threads over the offseason, so you can search for my comments in those threads. Here is another stat that shows that there is overall roughly the same number of RBS getting 100+ carries in a season over the past several years . . .

06 47

05 45

04 43

03 45

02 44

01 43

00 38

99 41

98 39

97 45

96 44

95 42

94 39

93 41

92 41

91 40

90 44

THere may be a very slight jump up in that category, but IMO not enough to set people into thinking the entire league is morphing into RBBC. I think the difference is that now some more older known backs are taking on roles where they are not 300 carry starters so the perception is that there are all these backs to go around. I don't think that there is a major difference than in previous years but it seems to be getting a lot of talk these days.

 

[Hooper31]

I've posted in these threads over the offseason, so you can search for my comments in those threads. Here is another stat that shows that there is overall roughly the same number of RBS getting 100+ carries in a season over the past several years . . .06 4705 4504 4303 4502 4401 4300 3899 4198 3997 4596 4495 4294 3993 4192 4191 4090 44THere may be a very slight jump up in that category, but IMO not enough to set people into thinking the entire league is morphing into RBBC. I think the difference is that now some more older known backs are taking on roles where they are not 300 carry starters so the perception is that there are all these backs to go around. I don't think that there is a major difference than in previous years but it seems to be getting a lot of talk these days.

Hi David,Can you quickly generate this list for different numbers of carries? 200+, 250+, 300+?Also, I'd like to see what the average number of carries that the rushing leader from each team is getting from the past decade. Perhaps not each team, but averaged out over the entire league. I'm guessing it has remained fairly static.

 

[FTRWRTR]

I've posted in these threads over the offseason, so you can search for my comments in those threads. Here is another stat that shows that there is overall roughly the same number of RBS getting 100+ carries in a season over the past several years . . .06 4705 4504 4303 4502 4401 4300 3899 4198 3997 4596 4495 4294 3993 4192 4191 4090 44THere may be a very slight jump up in that category, but IMO not enough to set people into thinking the entire league is morphing into RBBC. I think the difference is that now some more older known backs are taking on roles where they are not 300 carry starters so the perception is that there are all these backs to go around. I don't think that there is a major difference than in previous years but it seems to be getting a lot of talk these days.

I haven't looked up the stats myself but I'm thinking that today you have more guys like brandon jacobs who don't fit the old definition because they won't get 100+ carries over the course of a season but they get the majority of the important carries ie. goal line/TD carries. A goal line rb can get two TDs on just two carries and have a good game ff wise(12 fp = 120 yards)), while it may take a yardage rb at least twenty carries to have a game as good.

 

[David Yudkin]

Here are the numbers for 150, 200, 250, and 300 carries per season . . .

06 39 27 17 10

05 35 24 17 10

04 32 24 17 9

03 31 23 16 13

02 34 28 19 9

01 35 22 15 10

00 29 24 19 9

99 28 22 15 6

98 27 25 17 11

97 32 24 15 6

96 32 19 13 11

95 29 22 15 9

94 29 19 12 7

93 31 17 8 2

92 27 16 13 5

91 27 11 7 2

90 27 16 6 0

There are a lot of things to point out . . .

- There are now more teams, so that would help push the numbers up

- The game changed from the early 90s and there are more teams running a lot more

- Players are better able to withstand the rigors of an NFL season

- The top guys have not been impacted all that much

- Teams that don't have guys like LT, Edge, or Faulk are the ones dividing the workload more

As for the specialist role (like Jacobs), I commented on this before and the actual breakdown of fantsy points at certain milestones really hasn't changed much at all. In fact, the number of players at certain scoring levels has actually gone up a smidge.

IMO, all this means is that the bucket of RB2 candidates will be slighlty higher and the guys that are clear fantasy RB1s will dip a little as there is the potential for them to lose some carries.

All in all, IMO much ado about nothing.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Not one of the final four teams last year had a back with over 300 carries.

All four had two backs with more with than 150 carries.



Lets see how many carries RB2 on NE, IND, and CHI get this year now that each of them have broken up their combos from 2006. If Addai, Maroney, and Benson all become 300 carry backs, I'll pipe down about this "its a two back league now" thing - it would seem that it was just a temporary situation created by personnel. However, if NE and IND draft Leonard/Booker types, and Chicago gives Peterson 150 carries, then I think you have to conclude that their offensive system has significant roles for two backs, not just the typical workhorse and 3rd down/COP split. It's a copycat league - if the successful teams are doing it, others will follow. Just look at the spread of the 3-4/hybrid and cover 2 defenses...

 

[Z-Dog]

Not one of the final four teams last year had a back with over 300 carries.All four had two backs with more with than 150 carries.Lets see how many carries RB2 on NE, IND, and CHI get this year now that each of them have broken up their combos from 2006. If Addai, Maroney, and Benson all become 300 carry backs, I'll pipe down about this "its a two back league now" thing. However, if NE and IND draft Leonard/Booker types, and Chicago gives Peterson 150 carries, then I think you have to conclude that their offensive system has significant roles for two backs, not just the typical workhorse and 3rd down/COP split. It's a copycat league - if the successful teams are doing it, others will follow. Just look at the spread of the 3-4/hybrid and cover 2 defenses...

As long as RB1 gets 280+ who cares what RB2 gets? Thomas Jones had 296 carris, making him 11th overall. Why should I care that Benson had another 157? Jones was a true RB1, imo. Even Travis Henry ended up with 270 carries despite Chris Brown and Lendale White. About half of all NFL teams had an RB with 260+ carries. Among those below that number were teams that were predicted to have a one-back offense (Seattle, Buffalo, Miami, Tampa, Cleveland, Detroit, Washington), and above that number were teams predicted to have a two-back offense (Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, Tennessee).

 

[FTRWRTR]

I've posted in these threads over the offseason, so you can search for my comments in those threads. Here is another stat that shows that there is overall roughly the same number of RBS getting 100+ carries in a season over the past several years . . .06 4705 4504 4303 4502 4401 4300 3899 4198 3997 4596 4495 4294 3993 4192 4191 4090 44THere may be a very slight jump up in that category, but IMO not enough to set people into thinking the entire league is morphing into RBBC. I think the difference is that now some more older known backs are taking on roles where they are not 300 carry starters so the perception is that there are all these backs to go around. I don't think that there is a major difference than in previous years but it seems to be getting a lot of talk these days.

I haven't looked up the stats myself but I'm thinking that today you have more guys like brandon jacobs who don't fit the old definition because they won't get 100+ carries over the course of a season but they get the majority of the important carries ie. goal line/TD carries. A goal line rb can get two TDs on just two carries and have a good game ff wise(12 fp = 120 yards)), while it may take a yardage rb at least twenty carries to have a game as good.

Okay, I looked up the stats and I was partially right. The criteria for what makes up a rbbc has changed but it's not because of the reason I orginally thought. The reason now is that more teams are using a 3rd rb. When you combine the number of carries a team's #2 and #3 rbs get you'll find out that 18 times they've combined for at least 100 carries. So if you're defining a rbbc as a team's top rb losing out on at least 100 carries, the answer for 2006 is 18, not 10

 

[Wildman]

Much Ado About Nothing....

 

[jwb]

I haven't looked up the stats myself but I'm thinking that today you have more guys like brandon jacobs who don't fit the old definition because they won't get 100+ carries over the course of a season but they get the majority of the important carries ie. goal line/TD carries. A goal line rb can get two TDs on just two carries and have a good game ff wise(12 fp = 120 yards)), while it may take a yardage rb at least twenty carries to have a game as good.

I was thinking this same thing as well. The use of specialists is likely up - the goal line back, the third down "screen pass" back, etc. Remember what a phenom "The Fridge" was because he took a few goalline carries? Would he be a phenom now because of that? Probably not. In terms of rushes, last year's duo of Tiki Barber (327) and Jacobs (96) were really not a RBBC. Tiki was easily the feature back. But in terms of fantasy points, Jacobs definitely was a cause for concern for Tiki owners.

 

[CalBear]

Okay, I looked up the stats and I was partially right. The criteria for what makes up a rbbc has changed but it's not because of the reason I orginally thought. The reason now is that more teams are using a 3rd rb. When you combine the number of carries a team's #2 and #3 rbs get you'll find out that 18 times they've combined for at least 100 carries. So if you're defining a rbbc as a team's top rb losing out on at least 100 carries, the answer for 2006 is 18, not 10

Your measure is essentially meaningless. Let me put a question before you: Was Walter Payton an RBBC guy?I ask because Payton "lost out" on at least 150 carries every year of his career (excepting strike years). Most years he lost out on 200 or more. In the Super Bowl year, the Bears gave 115 carries to some guy named Matt Suhey, and three other backs had at least 25 carries.

What about another workhorse back, like OJ? Sorry, he lost more than 100 carries every year of his career, too. In his 2000 yard season, in just 14 games, the Bills had Jim Braxton with 108 carries, and Larry Watkins with 98.

Earl Campbell? When he set the record for most carries in a season, other Oilers backs had over 150 carries.

Teams have always used multiple backs. Teams are still using multiple backs. It's not any kind of trend.

 

[FTRWRTR]

Okay, I looked up the stats and I was partially right. The criteria for what makes up a rbbc has changed but it's not because of the reason I orginally thought. The reason now is that more teams are using a 3rd rb. When you combine the number of carries a team's #2 and #3 rbs get you'll find out that 18 times they've combined for at least 100 carries. So if you're defining a rbbc as a team's top rb losing out on at least 100 carries, the answer for 2006 is 18, not 10

Your measure is essentially meaningless. Let me put a question before you: Was Walter Payton an RBBC guy?I ask because Payton "lost out" on at least 150 carries every year of his career (excepting strike years). Most years he lost out on 200 or more. In the Super Bowl year, the Bears gave 115 carries to some guy named Matt Suhey, and three other backs had at least 25 carries.

What about another workhorse back, like OJ? Sorry, he lost more than 100 carries every year of his career, too. In his 2000 yard season, in just 14 games, the Bills had Jim Braxton with 108 carries, and Larry Watkins with 98.

Earl Campbell? When he set the record for most carries in a season, other Oilers backs had over 150 carries.

Teams have always used multiple backs. Teams are still using multiple backs. It's not any kind of trend.

I prolly didn't make my point clear. Ppl are looking at just what the #2 rb does and saying if he gets 100 carries or more then that's a rbbc, if he doesn't then it's not. My point is we can no longer just focus on what the #2 rb does but also have to factor in how much a team uses their #3 rb.

 

[David Yudkin]

Okay, I looked up the stats and I was partially right. The criteria for what makes up a rbbc has changed but it's not because of the reason I orginally thought. The reason now is that more teams are using a 3rd rb. When you combine the number of carries a team's #2 and #3 rbs get you'll find out that 18 times they've combined for at least 100 carries. So if you're defining a rbbc as a team's top rb losing out on at least 100 carries, the answer for 2006 is 18, not 10

Your measure is essentially meaningless. Let me put a question before you: Was Walter Payton an RBBC guy?I ask because Payton "lost out" on at least 150 carries every year of his career (excepting strike years). Most years he lost out on 200 or more. In the Super Bowl year, the Bears gave 115 carries to some guy named Matt Suhey, and three other backs had at least 25 carries.

What about another workhorse back, like OJ? Sorry, he lost more than 100 carries every year of his career, too. In his 2000 yard season, in just 14 games, the Bills had Jim Braxton with 108 carries, and Larry Watkins with 98.

Earl Campbell? When he set the record for most carries in a season, other Oilers backs had over 150 carries.

Teams have always used multiple backs. Teams are still using multiple backs. It's not any kind of trend.

I prolly didn't make my point clear. Ppl are looking at just what the #2 rb does and saying if he gets 100 carries or more than that's a rbbc, if he doesn't then it's not. My point is we can no longer just focus on what the #2 rb does but also have to factor in how much a team uses their #3 rb.

IMO, all we should care about is what a given RB actually gets . . . not what he doesn't get. Teams almost always overload some of the workload tro other RBs, whether it be one guy or several. I suspect that if there is a pattern changing, it may be that the trend is to give the leftovers consolidated more to one back than in the past.In other words, if a team had 450 carries that used to be split 300/75/50/25 maybe now it's 300/125/25 so the second guy might be a fantasy option.

 

[CalBear]

Okay, I looked up the stats and I was partially right. The criteria for what makes up a rbbc has changed but it's not because of the reason I orginally thought. The reason now is that more teams are using a 3rd rb. When you combine the number of carries a team's #2 and #3 rbs get you'll find out that 18 times they've combined for at least 100 carries. So if you're defining a rbbc as a team's top rb losing out on at least 100 carries, the answer for 2006 is 18, not 10

Your measure is essentially meaningless. Let me put a question before you: Was Walter Payton an RBBC guy?I ask because Payton "lost out" on at least 150 carries every year of his career (excepting strike years). Most years he lost out on 200 or more. In the Super Bowl year, the Bears gave 115 carries to some guy named Matt Suhey, and three other backs had at least 25 carries.

What about another workhorse back, like OJ? Sorry, he lost more than 100 carries every year of his career, too. In his 2000 yard season, in just 14 games, the Bills had Jim Braxton with 108 carries, and Larry Watkins with 98.

Earl Campbell? When he set the record for most carries in a season, other Oilers backs had over 150 carries.

Teams have always used multiple backs. Teams are still using multiple backs. It's not any kind of trend.

I prolly didn't make my point clear. Ppl are looking at just what the #2 rb does and saying if he gets 100 carries or more then that's a rbbc, if he doesn't then it's not. My point is we can no longer just focus on what the #2 rb does but also have to factor in how much a team uses their #3 rb.

As noted above, teams have always used two and three backs. It's not meaningful to say that San Diego had an RBBC situation because the RB2 had 80 carries and the RB3 had 29, any more than it's meaningful to say that OJ managed 2000 yards in RBBC just because the RB2 and RB3 combined for over 200 carries. OJ was a featured back by any reasonable definition of the term, and so is Tomlinson.

 

[FTRWRTR]

Okay, I looked up the stats and I was partially right. The criteria for what makes up a rbbc has changed but it's not because of the reason I orginally thought. The reason now is that more teams are using a 3rd rb. When you combine the number of carries a team's #2 and #3 rbs get you'll find out that 18 times they've combined for at least 100 carries. So if you're defining a rbbc as a team's top rb losing out on at least 100 carries, the answer for 2006 is 18, not 10

Your measure is essentially meaningless. Let me put a question before you: Was Walter Payton an RBBC guy?I ask because Payton "lost out" on at least 150 carries every year of his career (excepting strike years). Most years he lost out on 200 or more. In the Super Bowl year, the Bears gave 115 carries to some guy named Matt Suhey, and three other backs had at least 25 carries.

What about another workhorse back, like OJ? Sorry, he lost more than 100 carries every year of his career, too. In his 2000 yard season, in just 14 games, the Bills had Jim Braxton with 108 carries, and Larry Watkins with 98.

Earl Campbell? When he set the record for most carries in a season, other Oilers backs had over 150 carries.

Teams have always used multiple backs. Teams are still using multiple backs. It's not any kind of trend.

I prolly didn't make my point clear. Ppl are looking at just what the #2 rb does and saying if he gets 100 carries or more then that's a rbbc, if he doesn't then it's not. My point is we can no longer just focus on what the #2 rb does but also have to factor in how much a team uses their #3 rb.

As noted above, teams have always used two and three backs. It's not meaningful to say that San Diego had an RBBC situation because the RB2 had 80 carries and the RB3 had 29, any more than it's meaningful to say that OJ managed 2000 yards in RBBC just because the RB2 and RB3 combined for over 200 carries. OJ was a featured back by any reasonable definition of the term, and so is Tomlinson.

So somehow it's a rbbc if a team's #2 rb gets 121 carries but not if the #2 rb gets 80 carries and the #3 rb gets 41 carries? That's all I'm saying, I'm not debating who is or isn't in a rbbc.

 

[CalBear]

So somehow it's a rbbc if a team's #2 rb gets 121 carries but not if the #2 rb gets 80 carries and the #3 rb gets 41 carries? That's all I'm saying, I'm not debating who is or isn't in a rbbc.

My current definition for "feature back" is one who gets two-thirds of the carries and TDs available. I don't think it really matters who gets the other 33%; if one back gets 66%, it's not RBBC.

 

[David Yudkin]

So somehow it's a rbbc if a team's #2 rb gets 121 carries but not if the #2 rb gets 80 carries and the #3 rb gets 41 carries? That's all I'm saying, I'm not debating who is or isn't in a rbbc.

My current definition for "feature back" is one who gets two-thirds of the carries and TDs available. I don't think it really matters who gets the other 33%; if one back gets 66%, it's not RBBC.

As I metioned above, IMO it doesn't really matter what percentage a guy gets. For example, the Steelers had 618 rusing attempts in 2004. If two guys each had 300 carries, would it have made any difference that it was a RBBC?

 

[FTRWRTR]

So somehow it's a rbbc if a team's #2 rb gets 121 carries but not if the #2 rb gets 80 carries and the #3 rb gets 41 carries? That's all I'm saying, I'm not debating who is or isn't in a rbbc.

My current definition for "feature back" is one who gets two-thirds of the carries and TDs available. I don't think it really matters who gets the other 33%; if one back gets 66%, it's not RBBC.

As I metioned above, IMO it doesn't really matter what percentage a guy gets. For example, the Steelers had 618 rusing attempts in 2004. If two guys each had 300 carries, would it have made any difference that it was a RBBC?

I believe I understand what you're saying but if a team's leading rusher goes from getting 300 carries one year to 250 carries the next year isn't that somehow significant?

 

[David Yudkin]

So somehow it's a rbbc if a team's #2 rb gets 121 carries but not if the #2 rb gets 80 carries and the #3 rb gets 41 carries? That's all I'm saying, I'm not debating who is or isn't in a rbbc.

My current definition for "feature back" is one who gets two-thirds of the carries and TDs available. I don't think it really matters who gets the other 33%; if one back gets 66%, it's not RBBC.

As I metioned above, IMO it doesn't really matter what percentage a guy gets. For example, the Steelers had 618 rusing attempts in 2004. If two guys each had 300 carries, would it have made any difference that it was a RBBC?

I believe I understand what you're saying but if a team's leading rusher goes from getting 300 carries one year to 250 carries the next year isn't that somehow significant?

It depends why. If PLAYER X had 300 carries in YEAR 1 playing in 16 games but 250 carries playing in 13 games the next year, nothing changed. I would also think that getting 300 carries is asking a lot of a RB in any given year as overall they get banged up a fair amount. So even if he played in all 16 games with nagging injuries he could lose a few here and there even playing every game.If you look back 5 years, there were only 51 times a RB had 300 carries in a season out of a possible 160 team seasons (32 teams x 5 years). That's about 32% or roughly a third of the time. IMO, I don't see teams with 300 carry backs as the ones migrating to a RBBC approach.

 

[CalBear]

So somehow it's a rbbc if a team's #2 rb gets 121 carries but not if the #2 rb gets 80 carries and the #3 rb gets 41 carries? That's all I'm saying, I'm not debating who is or isn't in a rbbc.

My current definition for "feature back" is one who gets two-thirds of the carries and TDs available. I don't think it really matters who gets the other 33%; if one back gets 66%, it's not RBBC.

As I metioned above, IMO it doesn't really matter what percentage a guy gets. For example, the Steelers had 618 rusing attempts in 2004. If two guys each had 300 carries, would it have made any difference that it was a RBBC?

I'm merely providing a definition for "feature back"; I do think that 600 carries split down the middle qualifies as an RBBC, though both members of the RBBC may be valuable fantasy options. My definition does marginally include Payton's 1978 season, where he had 333 carries and 11 TDs to Roland Harper's 240 carries and 6 TDs; I'm willing to make an exception for that one, since Payton was the #1 RB and Harper was #10.

 

[NoFBinLA]

As long as RB1 gets 280+ who cares what RB2 gets?

You should, when you're drafting in the 5,6,7th round and the stud backs are long gone. It's called value -- a back who can put up good point despite being #2 is a valuable addition to any fantasy team.RBBC doesn't mean a split down the middle division of carries. It could mean a goal line back and a workhorse. A guy who works more passing downs (and gets catches) and a guy who works the other two downs more often and gets the tough yards.

 

[godtomsatan]

RB scoring 100+ fantasy points (1/10yds, 1/rec, 6/td)

03: 34

04: 40

05: 45

06: 45

The top 24 RB has been relatively consistent. The #24 RB in 03 (167 points) would rank #28 in 04, #25 in 05, and #27 in 06.

 

[corpcow]

I don't think it's so much that the carries are going down for RB1's (statistics seem to show that they aren't!) as it is that more teams are focused on ensuring they have a quality RB2. There seem to be more quality RB2's in the league the last few years. I think that if we look closer, we might find that WR carries are decreasing, and RB3/4 carries are also on a downturn, RB1 carries are steady, and RB2 carries are UP. The net effect is to slightly depreciate the value of RB's in FF because there are more viable options on the better running teams with the RB2's.

I think that's precisely right. I haven't looked at it closely enough to know the numbers, but either RB2 carries are going up, or they are least being more productive with the carries. There are still plenty of studs, but backups are getting more carries. In the long run, this helps everyone be more productive, especially when you have a situation where their styles complement well. Both RBs are fresher, the defense is off guard, and you end up running the ball more than if you have 1 primary back and a relatively weak backup. From a fantasy perspective, I think this does indeed bump up the elite WRs. There's less dropoff now at RB2/3 from what you might get in rd 2/3 vs. what you might get in the mid/late rounds, and this is more than offset by getting an elite WR. If you had someone like SJax in the first, Fitz/CJ/Harrison in the second, and then a guy like Marion Barber or Addai later (I had both last year - Addai in the 4th or 5th and Barber in the 11th maybe?), you're going to be better off I think.

 

[zed2283]

I don't think it's so much that the carries are going down for RB1's (statistics seem to show that they aren't!) as it is that more teams are focused on ensuring they have a quality RB2. There seem to be more quality RB2's in the league the last few years. I think that if we look closer, we might find that WR carries are decreasing, and RB3/4 carries are also on a downturn, RB1 carries are steady, and RB2 carries are UP. The net effect is to slightly depreciate the value of RB's in FF because there are more viable options on the better running teams with the RB2's.

I think that's precisely right. I haven't looked at it closely enough to know the numbers, but either RB2 carries are going up, or they are least being more productive with the carries. There are still plenty of studs, but backups are getting more carries. In the long run, this helps everyone be more productive, especially when you have a situation where their styles complement well. Both RBs are fresher, the defense is off guard, and you end up running the ball more than if you have 1 primary back and a relatively weak backup. From a fantasy perspective, I think this does indeed bump up the elite WRs. There's less dropoff now at RB2/3 from what you might get in rd 2/3 vs. what you might get in the mid/late rounds, and this is more than offset by getting an elite WR. If you had someone like SJax in the first, Fitz/CJ/Harrison in the second, and then a guy like Marion Barber or Addai later (I had both last year - Addai in the 4th or 5th and Barber in the 11th maybe?), you're going to be better off I think.

Shhhh... don't tell anyone. I've had a lot of success in my scratch leagues the last several years taking elite WR's at the end of the 1st round while others are grabbing the lesser RB's.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I don't think it's so much that the carries are going down for RB1's (statistics seem to show that they aren't!) as it is that more teams are focused on ensuring they have a quality RB2. There seem to be more quality RB2's in the league the last few years. I think that if we look closer, we might find that WR carries are decreasing, and RB3/4 carries are also on a downturn, RB1 carries are steady, and RB2 carries are UP. The net effect is to slightly depreciate the value of RB's in FF because there are more viable options on the better running teams with the RB2's.

I think that's precisely right. I haven't looked at it closely enough to know the numbers, but either RB2 carries are going up, or they are least being more productive with the carries. There are still plenty of studs, but backups are getting more carries. In the long run, this helps everyone be more productive, especially when you have a situation where their styles complement well. Both RBs are fresher, the defense is off guard, and you end up running the ball more than if you have 1 primary back and a relatively weak backup. From a fantasy perspective, I think this does indeed bump up the elite WRs. There's less dropoff now at RB2/3 from what you might get in rd 2/3 vs. what you might get in the mid/late rounds, and this is more than offset by getting an elite WR. If you had someone like SJax in the first, Fitz/CJ/Harrison in the second, and then a guy like Marion Barber or Addai later (I had both last year - Addai in the 4th or 5th and Barber in the 11th maybe?), you're going to be better off I think.

Shhhh... don't tell anyone. I've had a lot of success in my scratch leagues the last several years taking elite WR's at the end of the 1st round while others are grabbing the lesser RB's.

Not to take this another direction as I have fought this battle before, but taking Manning after the 1st 5 picks is a GOOD move.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

RBBC doesn't mean a split down the middle division of carries. It could mean a goal line back and a workhorse. A guy who works more passing downs (and gets catches) and a guy who works the other two downs more often and gets the tough yards.

thank you.RBBC is gaining popularitywhether the Portis / Jones-Drew / MBarber etc. ownerswant to admit it or not. It's about sharing carries,and more carries usually equates to more FF points.Make it more complex if you wish,but for me, this is the bottom line.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

I said yesterday that I was going to do some in-depth research on this RBBC myth. Well, it's gonna take alot longer than I expected, but I'm gonna see it through to the end. After 3 hours of inputting stats into my excel spreadsheet, I finally finished year one (1978, when the league switched to 16 games). Only 28 years left. From the 1978 season (there were 28 teams), here are some stats:

- Only 3 RB's had 300+ carries (Walter Payton 333, Franco Harris 310, and Earl Campbell 302)

- 14 teams had a 200+ carry RB (CHI had a 300 and 200 carry RB)

- 12 teams had no RB's with 200+ carries

- Tampa Bay didn't have any RB's with 200+ carries (and only 1 with 100+)

- SF had no 200+ RB's, but they did have 4 with 100+

- There were 16,075 carries in 1978, 6,232 of those carries were by RB1's (38.77%)

- RB2's ran it 4,147 times (25.80%)

- RB3's ran it 2,226 times (13.85%)

- All other RB's combined for 2,178 carries (13.55%)

- QB's ran it 1,012 times (6.30%)

- WR's carried 122 times (.76%)

- All others (TE, linemen, etc.) had 158 carries (.98%)

So, what does all this data say so far? I don't know yet, but one thing that stood out to me was that the total combined carries of RB's 2-8 (yes, the LA Rams used 8 RB's) totalled 8,551 carries (53.19%). I would've thought this number was gonna be lower. I assumed RB1's would've accounted for about 55-60% of the carries.

I know it's just raw data right now, and the numbers can't account for injuries or other factors. But, as I complete each year up to 2007, I think trends will become apparent. I won't post each year as I complete it. Instead I think I'll post by decade.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I said yesterday that I was going to do some in-depth research on this RBBC myth. Well, it's gonna take alot longer than I expected, but I'm gonna see it through to the end. After 3 hours of inputting stats into my excel spreadsheet, I finally finished year one (1978, when the league switched to 16 games). Only 28 years left. From the 1978 season (there were 28 teams), here are some stats:- Only 3 RB's had 300+ carries (Walter Payton 333, Franco Harris 310, and Earl Campbell 302)- 14 teams had a 200+ carry RB (CHI had a 300 and 200 carry RB)- 12 teams had no RB's with 200+ carries- Tampa Bay didn't have any RB's with 200+ carries (and only 1 with 100+)- SF had no 200+ RB's, but they did have 4 with 100+- There were 16,075 carries in 1978, 6,232 of those carries were by RB1's (38.77%)- RB2's ran it 4,147 times (25.80%)- RB3's ran it 2,226 times (13.85%)- All other RB's combined for 2,178 carries (13.55%)- QB's ran it 1,012 times (6.30%)- WR's carried 122 times (.76%)- All others (TE, linemen, etc.) had 158 carries (.98%)So, what does all this data say so far? I don't know yet, but one thing that stood out to me was that the total combined carries of RB's 2-8 (yes, the LA Rams used 8 RB's) totalled 8,551 carries (53.19%). I would've thought this number was gonna be lower. I assumed RB1's would've accounted for about 55-60% of the carries.I know it's just raw data right now, and the numbers can't account for injuries or other factors. But, as I complete each year up to 2007, I think trends will become apparent. I won't post each year as I complete it. Instead I think I'll post by decade.

Thats some awesome data Please keep up the work.

 

[PahtyTom]

I think RBBC is more about 1.) being able to define the starter at the time of the fantasy draft 2.) being able to confidently plug in a RB into your lineup without fear that 20% of the time or 30% of the time he put up a goose egg. Even though the end of season results won't show it, the lack of being able to definitively pinpoint a team's starting RB at the draft, and lack of being able to confidently plug a RB in your lineup EVERY Sunday is where the fear of RBBC comes from.

 

[renesauz]

I said yesterday that I was going to do some in-depth research on this RBBC myth. Well, it's gonna take alot longer than I expected, but I'm gonna see it through to the end. After 3 hours of inputting stats into my excel spreadsheet, I finally finished year one (1978, when the league switched to 16 games). Only 28 years left. From the 1978 season (there were 28 teams), here are some stats:- Only 3 RB's had 300+ carries (Walter Payton 333, Franco Harris 310, and Earl Campbell 302)- 14 teams had a 200+ carry RB (CHI had a 300 and 200 carry RB)- 12 teams had no RB's with 200+ carries- Tampa Bay didn't have any RB's with 200+ carries (and only 1 with 100+)- SF had no 200+ RB's, but they did have 4 with 100+- There were 16,075 carries in 1978, 6,232 of those carries were by RB1's (38.77%)- RB2's ran it 4,147 times (25.80%)- RB3's ran it 2,226 times (13.85%)- All other RB's combined for 2,178 carries (13.55%)- QB's ran it 1,012 times (6.30%)- WR's carried 122 times (.76%)- All others (TE, linemen, etc.) had 158 carries (.98%)So, what does all this data say so far? I don't know yet, but one thing that stood out to me was that the total combined carries of RB's 2-8 (yes, the LA Rams used 8 RB's) totalled 8,551 carries (53.19%). I would've thought this number was gonna be lower. I assumed RB1's would've accounted for about 55-60% of the carries.I know it's just raw data right now, and the numbers can't account for injuries or other factors. But, as I complete each year up to 2007, I think trends will become apparent. I won't post each year as I complete it. Instead I think I'll post by decade.

for somebody from my neck of the woods...maybe five miles away?I can't wait to see the results of this study!I guess what I'm really having problems with is the way the term RBBC is used. AS often as not, it's use carries negative tones...tones that carry over to other "RBBC" situations that are clearly NOT negative.Also, everybody seems to have a slightly different interpretation of the meaning of the term.TO make matters worse, it's over-use, and frequent mis-use, have caused many to INCORRECTLY BELIEVE that there are less "feature backs" in the league now, when the evidence clearly shows that there are just as many 250+ carry backs as ever before. The term itself has led to misconceptions about RB's in general, and we need to fix it somehow in order to discuss FF topics accurately.IN MY MIND, the term implies the lack of a feature back on a given team. If the RB1 carries the ball 270 times, he's a feature back. Just because RB2 gets 220 carries doesn't mean RBBC to me, it means that team runs the ball a lot!Maybe we should just ditch the term and use different terms like "feature back" (250+ carry guy), "active back" (150+ carries), and "backup" (<150 carries). Of course, those numbers would be assuming 16 game health (IE: the per game carries would be the true test of carry totals).

 

[coolnerd]

I said yesterday that I was going to do some in-depth research on this RBBC myth. Well, it's gonna take alot longer than I expected, but I'm gonna see it through to the end. After 3 hours of inputting stats into my excel spreadsheet, I finally finished year one (1978, when the league switched to 16 games). Only 28 years left. From the 1978 season (there were 28 teams), here are some stats:- Only 3 RB's had 300+ carries (Walter Payton 333, Franco Harris 310, and Earl Campbell 302)- 14 teams had a 200+ carry RB (CHI had a 300 and 200 carry RB)- 12 teams had no RB's with 200+ carries- Tampa Bay didn't have any RB's with 200+ carries (and only 1 with 100+)- SF had no 200+ RB's, but they did have 4 with 100+- There were 16,075 carries in 1978, 6,232 of those carries were by RB1's (38.77%)- RB2's ran it 4,147 times (25.80%)- RB3's ran it 2,226 times (13.85%)- All other RB's combined for 2,178 carries (13.55%)- QB's ran it 1,012 times (6.30%)- WR's carried 122 times (.76%)- All others (TE, linemen, etc.) had 158 carries (.98%)So, what does all this data say so far? I don't know yet, but one thing that stood out to me was that the total combined carries of RB's 2-8 (yes, the LA Rams used 8 RB's) totalled 8,551 carries (53.19%). I would've thought this number was gonna be lower. I assumed RB1's would've accounted for about 55-60% of the carries.I know it's just raw data right now, and the numbers can't account for injuries or other factors. But, as I complete each year up to 2007, I think trends will become apparent. I won't post each year as I complete it. Instead I think I'll post by decade.

Once you get into the early 80s and late 70s football was played differently than how. Teams used two back sets regularly. The fullback carried the ball regularly ( I would bet at least 100 times a year) with the tailback carrying the rest. the notable exceptions were teams which had outstanding TBs and even then the Fbs would carry the ball more any pure Fb in the league does now. This not RRBC football, but a game played much different than now. In the 1980s nfl teams went more regularly to the 'I" formation and one-back sets, but probably until the early 1990s you will still one or two teams where the FB is more than a blocker. If your goal is to gain an understanding of what's a RRBC committee, 1990 and forward would be your best numbers with 1985 or so being the earliest for it to have signiifcant meaning as to the way football is played now.

 

[GregR_2]

I said yesterday that I was going to do some in-depth research on this RBBC myth. Well, it's gonna take alot longer than I expected, but I'm gonna see it through to the end. After 3 hours of inputting stats into my excel spreadsheet, I finally finished year one (1978, when the league switched to 16 games). Only 28 years left. From the 1978 season (there were 28 teams), here are some stats:

...

pro-football-reference.com already has season and individual game stats in Excel files for download.http://www.pro-football-reference.com/download/

 

[Dirty Weasel]

I said yesterday that I was going to do some in-depth research on this RBBC myth. Well, it's gonna take alot longer than I expected, but I'm gonna see it through to the end. After 3 hours of inputting stats into my excel spreadsheet, I finally finished year one (1978, when the league switched to 16 games). Only 28 years left. From the 1978 season (there were 28 teams), here are some stats:

...

pro-football-reference.com already has season and individual game stats in Excel files for download.http://www.pro-football-reference.com/download/

Yes, that's where I am getting the data from. But I am rearranging it to compare better. Another thing I noticed - In 1978, the NFL avg was 57.6% rush/42.4% pass. In 2006, the Falcons were first in the NFL in rushing attempts and last in passing attempts (56.3% rush/43.7% pass), yet they still rushed less than the avg team 28 years ago. I expected to see teams passing more as years went on, but this one kinda shocked me. Coolnerd made a good point about football changing over the years. It's certainly going to skew the data, but as long as I don't go nuts, I am gonna keep crunching the numbers.

 

[zed2283]

Your measure is essentially meaningless. Let me put a question before you: Was Walter Payton an RBBC guy?

I ask because Payton "lost out" on at least 150 carries every year of his career (excepting strike years). Most years he lost out on 200 or more. In the Super Bowl year, the Bears gave 115 carries to some guy named Matt Suhey, and three other backs had at least 25 carries.

What about another workhorse back, like OJ? Sorry, he lost more than 100 carries every year of his career, too. In his 2000 yard season, in just 14 games, the Bills had Jim Braxton with 108 carries, and Larry Watkins with 98.

Earl Campbell? When he set the record for most carries in a season, other Oilers backs had over 150 carries.

Teams have always used multiple backs. Teams are still using multiple backs. It's not any kind of trend.

"some guy named Matt Suhey" You're not serious, right? I must be getting old...